The way to get Sessions

[Iwatas]

Many, if not all of us, feel that PG is a bigger hole than SF. At least at SF, we are sure the future player exists, in Batum. At PG, many of us have doubts whether Bayless will grow into a point guard.

Milwaukee will match a reasonable deal for Sessions. But who says the Blazers have to make a reasonable deal? We just offered huge money to an over-the-hill Turkey-Glue, when Ariza is going for far less.

If Portland makes a large offer to Sessions, Milwaukee, given the current economy and their own needs, may well decide that the smart thing is to walk away. The trick is to make it enough money to make sure Milwaukee does not match.

Then the Blazers would have Blake/Bayless/Outlaw+Picks to package for a decent SF, if we can. But at least the PG position would be stocked for years to come.

Sessions is an excellent young PG. He has the right work ethic, he plays solid defense, he distributes the ball well. He is 23, which means he is right in line with the team's maturity. Show him enough money, and Milwaukee will walk away. He would be a MUCH better free agent pickup than Turk, or Ariza, or Lee.

Pritch - make it happen!

iWatas

 

[Minstrel]

Many, if not all of us, feel that PG is a bigger hole than SF. At least at SF, we are sure the future player exists, in Batum. At PG, many of us have doubts whether Bayless will grow into a point guard.

Milwaukee will match a reasonable deal for Sessions. But who says the Blazers have to make a reasonable deal? We just offered huge money to an over-the-hill Turkey-Glue, when Ariza is going for far less.

If Portland makes a large offer to Sessions, Milwaukee, given the current economy and their own needs, may well decide that the smart thing is to walk away. The trick is to make it enough money to make sure Milwaukee does not match.

As I said in the other thread:

By CBA rules, the most Portland can offer is a deal starting at the MLE. Sessions is a second-round pick, which means he reaches RFA a season earlier but it also means he's restricted in how much he can be offered...by Milwaukee or anyone else.

A deal starting at the MLE, Milwaukee will match without question. They cleared out Richard Jefferson and Charlie Villaneuva, presumably for this reason.

I'd love to get Sessions, but I think the only way to do it is to arrange a sign-and-trade with Milwaukee, if they're willing.

 

[Iwatas]

And, I add, Milwaukee drafted Jennings. They have Jennings and Ridnour at point even if Sessions goes.

 

[Iwatas]

Ah, my mistake. Pity.

 

[BIG Q]

Many, if not all of us, feel that PG is a bigger hole than SF. At least at SF, we are sure the future player exists, in Batum. At PG, many of us have doubts whether Bayless will grow into a point guard.

Milwaukee will match a reasonable deal for Sessions. But who says the Blazers have to make a reasonable deal? We just offered huge money to an over-the-hill Turkey-Glue, when Ariza is going for far less.

If Portland makes a large offer to Sessions, Milwaukee, given the current economy and their own needs, may well decide that the smart thing is to walk away. The trick is to make it enough money to make sure Milwaukee does not match.

Then the Blazers would have Blake/Bayless/Outlaw+Picks to package for a decent SF, if we can. But at least the PG position would be stocked for years to come.

Sessions is an excellent young PG. He has the right work ethic, he plays solid defense, he distributes the ball well. He is 23, which means he is right in line with the team's maturity. Show him enough money, and Milwaukee will walk away. He would be a MUCH better free agent pickup than Turk, or Ariza, or Lee.

Pritch - make it happen!

iWatas

You are correct that the offer would start as an MLE deal for the first two years. The third through fifth seasons are a different story. That is what would be the deciding factor on if the Bucks would match or not. It is a bit detailed, so here is the info;

With the previous CBA it was sometimes possible to sign restricted free agents to offer sheets their original teams couldn't match. This happened when a player was an Early Bird or Non-Bird free agent (see question number 19) and the team didn't have enough cap room to match a sufficiently large offer. For example, Gilbert Arenas was Golden State's second round draft pick in 2001, and became an Early Bird free agent in 2003. Golden State therefore could only match an offer sheet (or sign Arenas themselves) for up to the average salary (see question number 24), which was about $4.9 million. Washington signed Arenas to an offer sheet with a starting salary of about $8.5 million, which Golden State was powerless to match.

This loophole was addressed in the current CBA (although not closed completely -- see below). Teams are now limited in the salary they can offer in an offer sheet to a restricted free agent with one or two years in the league. The first-year salary in the offer sheet cannot be greater than the average salary (see question number 24). Limiting the first year salary in this way guarantees that the player's original team will be able to match the offer sheet by using the Early Bird exception (if applicable -- see question number 19), or Mid-Level exception (provided they haven't used it already).

The second year salary in such an offer sheet is limited to the standard 8% raise. The third year salary can jump considerably -- it is allowed to be as high as it would have been had the first year salary not been limited by this rule to the average salary. Raises (and decreases) after the third season are limited to 6.9% of the salary in the third season. The offer sheet can only contain the large jump in the third season if it provides the maximum salary allowed in the first two seasons. In addition, the offer must be guaranteed and cannot contain bonuses of any kind.

If the raise in the third season exceeds the standard raise (8% of the salary in the first season of the contract), then they place an additional restriction on the team. In order to determine the size of the offer the team can make, they don't fit just the first year salary under the cap. Instead, they must fit the average salary in the entire contract under the cap. So a team $8 million under the cap is limited to offering a total of $24 million over three years, $32 million over four years, or $40 million over five years. If the offer sheet does not contain a third-season raise larger than 8% of the first-season salary, then they only have to fit the first year salary under the cap.

Putting this all together, if a team is $11 million under the cap, wants to submit a five year offer sheet, and wants to provide a large raise in the third season, they can offer a total of $55 million. If the average salary is $5 million, then the second year salary will be $5.4 million (8% raise). This leaves $44.6 million to be distributed over the final three seasons. With 6.9% raises in years four and five, the entire contract looks like this:

Season Salary Notes
1 $5.0 million Average salary amount
2 $5.4 million 8% raise over season 1
3 $13.907 million This is the amount that yields $44.6 million over the final three seasons with 6.9% raises*
4 $14.867 million Raise is 6.9% of season 3 salary
5 $15.826 million Raise is 6.9% of season 3 salary
Total $55 million Average is $11 million, which equals the team's cap room

* If you want to know how I got that exact amount, (for a five year offer) you solve for (5R - 2.08A) / 3.207. R is the room the team has under the cap. A is the average salary amount (e.g., $5 million). The 2.08 represents the salary in the first two seasons (100% of the average, plus 108% of the average). The 3.207 represents the salary in the last three seasons, using 6.9% raises: 1.0 + 1.069 + 1.138 = 3.207. Similarly, for a four year offer you would solve for (4R - 2.08A) / 2.069.

For the team making this offer, this contract would count for $11.0 million (i.e., the average salary in the contract) of team salary in each of the five seasons if they sign the player. If the player's prior team matches the offer and keeps the player, then the actual salary in each season counts as team salary. The player's original team is allowed to use any available exception (e.g., the Mid-Level or the Early-Bird) to match the offer.

Since a team must fit the average salary from the entire contract under the cap in order to offer the large third-season raise, a team must have some amount of cap room above the average salary amount in order to effectively utilize this provision. For example, suppose the average salary amount is $5 million, and a team with $5.1 million of cap room wants to provide a five year offer sheet. If they want to offer a larger-than-normal third-year raise, then their cap room will be determined by the contract's average salary, so the total contract must pay $25.5 million or less. If they offer $5 million and $5.4 million in the first two seasons, then that leaves just $15.1 million for the final three seasons -- so there must be a decrease in salary in the final three seasons. A team in this situation is better off providing the standard 8% raise in the third season, which does not trigger the cap room requirement based on averaging. In this example, a five year offer starting at $5 million with 8% raises would total $29.0 million.

As I said above, the loophole was addressed with this rule, but not closed completely. This is because this provision is primarily intended to protect teams from losing their successful second round picks, who are Early-Bird free agents after two years. There are several situations where a team still might be unable to match an offer sheet:

If the player is a Non-Bird free agent and the team already used their Mid-Level exception to sign another player.
If the player is a Non-Bird or Early Bird free agent with three years in the league (this rule applies only to players with one or two years in the league).
If a team has two Non-Bird free agents with one or two years in the league. They can use the Mid-Level exception to keep one of them, but would lose the other.
This provision also ensures that second round picks can't cash in with a maximum salary sooner than first round picks can.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q37

 

[Further]

I wanted sessions a while back, but the more I think about it, his 17% shooting from 3pt really scares me. I don't think that will be enough to help spread the floor so Oden and LMA can operate.

 

[Tyler_Hansbrough]

I wanted sessions a while back, but the more I think about it, his 17% shooting from 3pt really scares me. I don't think that will be enough to help spread the floor so Oden and LMA can operate.

Did you notice how many threes he shot?

 

[Tince]

Did you notice how many threes he shot?

He didn't attempt many 3's because he can't shoot, and he knows it. That's a problem.

 

[axs88]

Putting this all together, if a team is $11 million under the cap, wants to submit a five year offer sheet, and wants to provide a large raise in the third season, they can offer a total of $55 million.

So if we have 9 mill in cap space, we can offer Sessions a 5yr 45M contract. Hmmm, not bad. Anyone think the Bucks would match THAT?

 

[bobf]

Sounds like a good plan to me!

 

[Iwatas]

This is exactly the right kind of solution.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I'm on board! The 3% is not a big worry for me: yes, we want a good shooter. I would be worried if he hoisted a ton and only hit 20%, but not shooting a lot of 3s is GOOD for a young player - if you don't take it inside when you're young, you never will. And if there's one thing I really believe NBA players can learn over the course of their careers, it's 3 point shooting. Look at Magic Johnson. Look at Jason Kidd. And for a recent example, look at Trevor Ariza. I really would MUCH prefer the team went after Sessions than after Lee. The only reasons I can see that they wouldn't go after Sessions is the RFA thing, and knowing that would basically tie us up for the whole FA period while the Bucks mull matching. But of course, the same is true of Lee..

I hope we're not passing on Sessions because Pritchard really believes Bayless is the answer. Well, I guess we've got Summer League to see if he can be...

 

[axs88]

I'm on board! The 3% is not a big worry for me: yes, we want a good shooter. I would be worried if he hoisted a ton and only hit 20%, but not shooting a lot of 3s is GOOD for a young player - if you don't take it inside when you're young, you never will. And if there's one thing I really believe NBA players can learn over the course of their careers, it's 3 point shooting. Look at Magic Johnson. Look at Jason Kidd. And for a recent example, look at Trevor Ariza. I really would MUCH prefer the team went after Sessions than after Lee. The only reasons I can see that they wouldn't go after Sessions is the RFA thing, and knowing that would basically tie us up for the whole FA period while the Bucks mull matching. But of course, the same is true of Lee..

I hope we're not passing on Sessions because Pritchard really believes Bayless is the answer. Well, I guess we've got Summer League to see if he can be...

Yeah, the lopsided trades are always going to be there (assuming they are there now), since I can't see any of the teams with cap space going after a PG or SF in trade (basically it's down to OKC, and they have those positions down). The only risk is that the Bucks match and by that time, Odom and Miller reach deals with their teams or someone else. I'm not worried about us missing out on a backup 4, it seems like there are a ton of options to explore in FA and trades. But I can easily see Odom's party playing the waiting game (and I also can't really seem him coming here), Miller too. So KP, go get Sessions! Who cares if you get "slapped" again, well this board will be very annoying once again for a couple of days, but people are gonna complain either way. (BTW, it seems like it's very sexy these days to bash KP, to go against the grain and all that... maybe because he was treated like Jesus on here before.)

Also, if we get Sessions, I'd be open to the idea of giving Bayless up for a top SF in trade.

 

[B-Roy]

Those of you who want Sessions are caught up with his youth. He's no better than Andre Miller at this point, and you want to pay him 45 million? Seriously?

 

[azsun67]

Those of you who want Sessions are caught up with his youth. He's no better than Andre Miller at this point, and you want to pay him 45 million? Seriously?

I agree, don't understand the Sessions hype. I have not seen him play much, but I do remember him getting benched on occasion towards the end of the year for poor decisions. I don't like his 17% 3 pts, but what I really don't like is how many games he shoots 4 or less ft's. He has some big freee throw games, but in a lot of the games he doesn't shoot many, so this tells me he does not drive and make contact, which is something I want our PG to do. Also, I don't think he was playing as much at the end of the season, was Ridnour actually taking his minutes from him, OUCH!

 

[Sedatedfork]

Those of you who want Sessions are caught up with his youth. He's no better than Andre Miller at this point, and you want to pay him 45 million? Seriously?

That -- and with his last 3 years this will be when Roy and Aldridge have been extended, meaning serious luxury tax ville. It's not my money, but I think he will be a very good PG and might actually be worth the money at some point in his contract. Still... why not just see what J Bay can do, eh?

 

[Ed O]

Those of you who want Sessions are caught up with his youth. He's no better than Andre Miller at this point, and you want to pay him 45 million? Seriously?

Why not?

A player who's as good as Andre Miller is very valuable... in many years, a 5 year, $45m deal would not be at all out of the ordinary for an Andre Miller-type player.

Heck, I'd argue that Andre Miller is a superior player to Hedo, at a position of scarcity, and 5/$45m is less than Turkoglu was just offered by two teams even in a terrible economy.

Add in the fact that MANY 22 year-olds get better over time and it points to Sessions not only living up to such a huge deal but also potentially making it look like a bargain.

Ed O.

 

[bobf]

I agree, don't understand the Sessions hype. I have not seen him play much, but I do remember him getting benched on occasion towards the end of the year for poor decisions. I don't like his 17% 3 pts, but what I really don't like is how many games he shoots 4 or less ft's. He has some big freee throw games, but in a lot of the games he doesn't shoot many, so this tells me he does not drive and make contact, which is something I want our PG to do. Also, I don't think he was playing as much at the end of the season, was Ridnour actually taking his minutes from him, OUCH!

Actually, he gets to the line more than 5x as often as Steve Blake. His FTA is 50% of his FGA. Blake's is 10%. Roy's is 35%. So relative to how often he shoots he gets to the line a ton.

However, in spite of getting to the line a lot his efficiency is still worse than Blake's due to not taking or making many 3's.

I think the "hype" about him is in part due to
- his PER being much better than Blake's
- Blake's defense sucks - which PER doesn't even account for (dunno if Session's defense is bad or not)
- his 3 point shooting and defense might improve significantly, him being so young

I'd take a young Andre Miller with lots of room to improve any day, given that PG is our greatest weakness.

 

[axs88]

Why not?

A player who's as good as Andre Miller is very valuable... in many years, a 5 year, $45m deal would not be at all out of the ordinary for an Andre Miller-type player.

Heck, I'd argue that Andre Miller is a superior player to Hedo, at a position of scarcity, and 5/$45m is less than Turkoglu was just offered by two teams even in a terrible economy.

Add in the fact that MANY 22 year-olds get better over time and it points to Sessions not only living up to such a huge deal but also potentially making it look like a bargain.

Ed O.

Agreed 100%.

 

[illmatic99]

If we're doing a S&T of a RFA, he would be a BYC player at the time of the trade, correct? I suppose since both Mil and Por will be under the cap, it's not that big of a deal, but it's still something to consider.

 

[Iwatas]

Sessions is a top-10 PG, when defense is included. The below are Hollinger's rankings, which obviously are not as good at measuring the defensive end of the floor.

I'd say he is better that Nate Robinson, Jason Terry, and Calderon - that makes him 10th best in the league.

ger Stats: Player Efficiency Rating - Point Guard
RNK Player GP Min TS% Ast TO Usg ORR DRR RebR PER VA EWA
1 Chris Paul, NOR 78 38.5 .599 33.4 9.0 27.9 2.8 14.6 8.7 30.04 853.2 28.4
2 Tony Parker, SAS 72 34.1 .556 23.6 8.8 30.1 1.3 9.4 5.4 23.47 457.0 15.2
3 Devin Harris, NJN 69 36.1 .563 23.9 10.6 27.4 1.4 9.7 5.5 21.65 396.3 13.2
4 Deron Williams, UTH 68 36.8 .573 34.4 10.8 25.5 1.1 8.1 4.6 21.13 378.6 12.6
5 Jameer Nelson, ORL 42 31.2 .612 25.6 9.4 22.3 1.8 10.5 6.2 20.66 188.8 6.3
6 Steve Nash, PHO 74 33.6 .615 37.6 13.0 22.0 0.9 9.2 5.2 19.55 316.9 10.6
7 Jason Terry, DAL 74 33.7 .571 15.3 7.3 23.7 1.8 6.3 4.1 19.35 310.3 10.3
8 Nate Robinson, NYK 74 29.9 .549 18.8 8.7 24.1 4.7 9.8 7.2 18.95 261.9 8.7
9 Rajon Rondo, BOS 80 33.0 .543 37.8 12.0 20.1 4.8 13.9 9.6 18.90 311.4 10.4
10 Chauncey Billups, DEN 79 35.3 .592 27.1 9.5 21.3 1.4 8.4 5.0 18.85 326.7 10.9
11 Jose Calderon, TOR 68 34.3 .613 41.5 9.8 18.1 0.8 8.9 4.9 18.80 271.7 9.1
12 Andre Miller, PHI 82 36.3 .548 27.3 10.2 21.8 4.9 9.9 7.4 18.71 342.3 11.4
13 Ramon Sessions, MIL

 

[axs88]

If you look at young (27 and under) PGs, I'd rank him right after Paul, Parker, Williams, Harris and Rondo, about equal with Nelson. Why wouldn't we want him? Can Bayless turn out to be as good? Yes. But Sessions is already there. If we can't get a SF upgrade with Bayless and parts, we could let them battle it out next year -- Bayless' stock can only go up (assuming Blake isn't here).

 

[bobf]

Sessions is a top-10 PG, when defense is included. The below are Hollinger's rankings, which obviously are not as good at measuring the defensive end of the floor.

I'd say he is better that Nate Robinson, Jason Terry, and Calderon - that makes him 10th best in the league.

Helps to put it inside CODE tags... and you left off Session's stats.

ger Stats: Player Efficiency Rating - Point Guard
RNK	Player	        GP	Min	TS%	Ast	TO	Usg	ORR	DRR	RebR	PER	VA	EWA
1	Chris Paul, NOR	78	38.5	.599	33.4	9.0	27.9	2.8	14.6	8.7	30.04	853.2	28.4
2	Tony Par, SAS	72	34.1	.556	23.6	8.8	30.1	1.3	9.4	5.4	23.47	457.0	15.2
3	Devin Har, NJN	69	36.1	.563	23.9	10.6	27.4	1.4	9.7	5.5	21.65	396.3	13.2
4	Deron Wil UTH	68	36.8	.573	34.4	10.8	25.5	1.1	8.1	4.6	21.13	378.6	12.6
5	Jameer Nel ORL	42	31.2	.612	25.6	9.4	22.3	1.8	10.5	6.2	20.66	188.8	6.3
6	Steve Nash, PHO	74	33.6	.615	37.6	13.0	22.0	0.9	9.2	5.2	19.55	316.9	10.6
7	Jason Ter DAL	74	33.7	.571	15.3	7.3	23.7	1.8	6.3	4.1	19.35	310.3	10.3
8	Nate Rob NYK	74	29.9	.549	18.8	8.7	24.1	4.7	9.8	7.2	18.95	261.9	8.7
9	Rajon Ron BOS	80	33.0	.543	37.8	12.0	20.1	4.8	13.9	9.6	18.90	311.4	10.4
10	Chauncey DEN	79	35.3	.592	27.1	9.5	21.3	1.4	8.4	5.0	18.85	326.7	10.9
11	Jose Cald TOR	68	34.3	.613	41.5	9.8	18.1	0.8	8.9	4.9	18.80	271.7	9.1
12	Andre Mill PHI	82	36.3	.548	27.3	10.2	21.8	4.9	9.9	7.4	18.71	342.3	11.4
13	Ramon Se MIL

 

[B-Roy]

Sessions is a top-10 PG, when defense is included. The below are Hollinger's rankings, which obviously are not as good at measuring the defensive end of the floor.

False. I'm a big fan of Sessions as a player, and from watching him in numerous games. he's a BAD defender. Not Steve Blake bad, but bad.

Also, one of the reasons Skiles sat him behind Ridnour a lot last season, was because Skiles felt Ridnour was a better defender. Yeah...Ridnour.

 

[azsun67]

Thats great that Sessions shoots more FT'sthen Blake since Blake never drives to the hoop. That is why most of us don't want him to be our starter. Blake is bad at defense and I am not sure Sessions is much better. I like Bayless much better then Sessions at 45 mil.

 

[alex42083]

Also, one of the reasons Skiles sat him behind Ridnour a lot last season, was because Skiles felt Ridnour was a better defender. Yeah...Ridnour.

If that was the case, I'd be even more disappointed with getting Sessions, especially at the price that's being thrown around here. Luke Ridnour... are you kidding me? haha.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

False. I'm a big fan of Sessions as a player, and from watching him in numerous games. he's a BAD defender. Not Steve Blake bad, but bad.

But some people have been considering Bibby - by THAT standard Sessions is Gary Payton.

Also, one of the reasons Skiles sat him behind Ridnour a lot last season, was because Skiles felt Ridnour was a better defender. Yeah...Ridnour.

What's your source on this?

 

[Idog1976]

Going after Sessions is easily our best move at this point. Odom will sign with LA after driving up his price to the max LA will pay. Millsap is not a bad idea and it hurts Utah. Lee is VASTLY overrated by himself, his agent and the NY media. Lee is good and would provide us with hustle and toughness but not at 5 years $50 million when we already have Aldridge. Go after Sessions hard and if possible make it a sign and trade that includes Kurt Thomas. I would rather not trade Bayless but would definitely trade Outlaw, Blake, Mills other rights to Euro's and/or picks + Cash and take back a bad contract. If we got them to S & T for Thomas and Sessions we could look to try for J-Chill if we still had time on the FA clock (when does that end?).

If we got Sessions and Thomas in a Sign and Trade that would solve two problems, three if you count Outlaw as a problem (which I do). At that point we could do a lopsided trade for G. Wallace or trade Joel for Battier + picks or whatever. If we go hard for Sessions our best case scenario is:

PG Sessions/Bayless/Mills
SG Roy/Rudy/Bayless
SF (Whatever you like of Battier Wallace or J-Chill)/Batum/Roy
PF LMA/(If we try for him Landry)/Thomas
C Oden/Thomas/LMA

That's a pretty deep solid team through and through. Please don't talk about how amazing Joel is at back up. I am well aware of his value. I think the Joel for Battier trade is very feasible and may happen regardless. I would rather have LMA at the 5 and a competent PF (Thomas/Landry etc.) then what we had last year when LMA was at the 5 which was Channing Frye. LMA is fine as a second string center (many teams would kill for him to START at the 5) as long as he has a banger/rebounding PF to work with. Battier for Joel is a great move and we should do it if we get a back up big that can rebound and defend in the paint. If we get Sessions we can keep whoever is better between Sessions and Bayless after a year or two and trade for depth or to consolidate or even get draft picks to keep the dynasty alive. Getting Sessions would give us so many options it's amazing especially if we also get a back up big like the extremely under rated Kurt Thomas in the process!

The worst case scenario of going balls out for Sessions is that we still have capspace to do a lop sided trade at the trade deadline or on draft day 2010. Go for what we need (a PG), Sessions is the best option out there that we have a shot at. I say swing for the fences and worst case scenario you stay with the current line up and lots of trade chips and cap space.

 

[bobf]

Thats great that Sessions shoots more FT'sthen Blake since Blake never drives to the hoop.

If you're saying that it doesn't mean much to get to the line more than Steve Blake then how about this. On a per minute basis, Sessions gets to the line more than Deron Williams, Chris Paul, and Tony Parker. He's in the same ballpark as Brandon Roy (5.9 vs 6.3 per 36 minutes).

That is why most of us don't want him to be our starter. Blake is bad at defense and I am not sure Sessions is much better. I like Bayless much better then Sessions at 45 mil.

Bayless had a PER of 8.2 last year
Blakes had PERs of 14.5, 12.0, 10.0, 14.6 the last four years.
Sessions had a PER of 17.7 last year and 16.5 his rookie year.

It's not very often that a second year player does that. Yeah, maybe Bayless will blossom into a better player. But given that our cap space is temporary this looks like a good place to use it.

 

[Idog1976]

Quote:
Originally Posted by azsun67
Thats great that Sessions shoots more FT'sthen Blake since Blake never drives to the hoop.
If you're saying that it doesn't mean much to get to the line more than Steve Blake then how about this. On a per minute basis, Sessions gets to the line more than Deron Williams, Chris Paul, and Tony Parker. He's in the same ballpark as Brandon Roy (5.9 vs 6.3 per 36 minutes).

Quote:
That is why most of us don't want him to be our starter. Blake is bad at defense and I am not sure Sessions is much better. I like Bayless much better then Sessions at 45 mil.
Bayless had a PER of 8.2 last year
Blakes had PERs of 14.5, 12.0, 10.0, 14.6 the last four years.
Sessions had a PER of 17.7 last year and 16.5 his rookie year.

It's not very often that a second year player does that. Yeah, maybe Bayless will blossom into a better player. But given that our cap space is temporary this looks like a good place to use it.

Great stuff in there. I absolutely agree about Bayless it's possible he will be twice as good as Sessions and enter Chris Paul territory but I don't think you can bank on it. If you bring in Sessions and retain Bayless you can take whoever is better after a season or two. It would virtually guarantee that we had our PG spot taken care of for a decade. That's a nice feeling. Also Sessions getting into the paint and drawing fouls is MUCH bigger then most people realize. If he's getting in the paint and drawing fouls he is weakening their defense and maybe getting the enemy center on the bench quicker. Tell me it doesn't help Oden to play against back ups!